and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break [#permalink]
23 May 2010, 05:07

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

62%(02:08) correct
38%(01:04) wrong based on 17 sessions

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truthb) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friendc) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.e) One should never break a promise _________________

press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?The teacher's argument comes down to: you should break your promise to Jeannie in favour of keeping the "truth-telling" promise to me. So I'm asking why are we leaving Jeannie out to dry here teacher? Let's see if any of these answers provide a reason:

a) Most people always tell the truth Doesn't prop up the teacher's reasoning.

b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend Maybe. But "best interest" gets a little out of scope. Maybe it was in Jeannie's best interest to be faking sick (probably was, the tone of this conversation seems more like a reprimand than anything else).

c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie So in this case, we SHOULD have lied to the teacher and kept the promise to Jeannie.

d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones. Here we go. The explicit promise was to Jeannie. The implicit promise is "not to lie." If the teacher feels that breaking the implicit one is "worse" (for whatever reason) then it stands to reason that they'd prefer truth telling to friend-promise-keeping if the two were in conflict. Without this assumption the argument falls apart.

e) One should never break a promise This just confuses everything and leaves you asking which promise to keep (implicit or explicit?)

_________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truth >>> Out of scope, we are not discussing what majority of people speak truth or tell a lieb) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friend >>> We cannot assume that student telling about jeanie is acting in Jeanie's best interest...c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie >>> Out of scope...d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.>>> Correct >>> The implicit promise is: Student talking to teacher....and explicit promise is : student's promise with Jeanie>>> Teacher tells student to break the explicit one...!!e) One should never break a promise >>> "Never" goes too extreme ...also teacher tells the student to break the promise with Jeanie,if student had made any..

Nope. D is not the OA . I chose D too but now I know why its not the OA. Give it one more try. Hint: It is an assumption question so use negation test.

Then B.. No other option is near to argument..What is the source..??

I dunno about that, since it's never determined if Jeannie is even a friend.

I'd go with A since it seems to mess up this: "But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth" which in this case, is actually an assumption made by the teacher... I'd be more interested in seeing how you go about rejecting D though. I guess it's because of the double occurrence of the word "some," it actually doesn't give you a basis on which to determine what the teacher was thinking (implicit > explicit or the other way around?) _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truthb) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friendc) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.e) One should never break a promise

Ans is D sinceThe teacher argument is that people make an implicit promise when they enter into a conversation and the teacher states "it is bad to break promises", saying that she means it is not right to break the implicit promise and when the teacher states " you should not tell me that " she means dont break the implicit promise even if u have to compromise the expilicit.

C,E are beyond the scope as consequences or the situations in which promises should be held are not being discussed.

Ok B has to be the answer because option E will act againist both the promises, but B means he has to tell the truth, thereby keeping the implicit promise and acting in tyhe friends best interest. _________________

is because an assumption is strictly needed for the conclusion to be true. In the conclusion, the teacher never asks the student to tell her if Jeannie is sick but merely says " you should not tell me that", thus by not telling the teacher, the student will keep both promises: explicit and implicit.

That's awesome, because it is totally true. The tonality of the statement is very good at making you think that the teacher is asking the student to throw Jeannie under the bus but the Teacher is actually saying to compromise and not lie, nor -

^^^ I started to type that, but then I thought a little more:

If the Student doesn't say boo to the teacher about anything, then the promise is broken to Jeannie.

"I promise to tell the teacher you are home sick"

If that never happens, the promise is technically broken, whether the Teacher is told otherwise or not told at all.

So the assumption really is "Never break an implicit promise" since the Teacher is adamantly saying "break the promise to Jeannie. Do NOT do what you said you would do because it violates the implicit truth making promise crap." _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

I dont know if LSAT reasoning is different from that of GMAT, but IMO, definitly E.

Premise 1: You agree that it is bad to break promises. [A broad generalized statement]Premise 2: On implicit promises and lying.Premise 3: On explicit promises and telling the truth.

In the end, it is stated that you should not tell...even if you know the real cause.

a) Most people always tell the truth[No mention of truth in most cases. Incorrect]

b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friendIt supports the last premise. Not an assumption. Incorrect]

c) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie Really. Who said that? Incorrect]

d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.Where in the argument above, any worse case is given which shows. Incorrect]

e) One should never break a promiseTry the negation test:One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1) and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

[/quote]

dimitri92 wrote:

Teacher to student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeannie that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?

a) Most people always tell the truth []b) It is sometimes better to act in a friend's best interest than to keep a promise to that friendc) Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie d) Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.e) One should never break a promise

e) One should never break a promiseTry the negation test:One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1) and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

Your explanation is good but it still doesn't satisfy my interpretation of the argument.

I disagree that the negation "one should break a promise" shatters the [you should not tell...] part. Simply and entirely because the Teacher, in no uncertain terms, tells the student to break a promise. Now, if someone can explain to me how that's an incorrect interpretation then fine. The way I break it down is as follows:

"You should not tell methat"

"that" refers to 'telling the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick"

Therefore: "you should not tell methatJeannie is home sick"

However, it is also stated: "you promised Jeannieyou'd tell me she was home sick" (preceded by "if," making this a hypothetical situation, just for clarity)

Thus the explicit promise is: Student WILL tell the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick.I consider the promise broken if this event does not occur EXACTLY as stated.In the sentence the Teacher advises the Student: "You should not tell me that Jeannie is home sick" (inferred, see above).

i.e. You should break your promise to Jeannie.

Therefore the Teacher's reasoning is not contingent on the assumption that "One should NEVER break a promise." Rather, it seems that the Teacher is saying that when faced with conflicting promises (implicit vs explicit) one has to make a decision because you can't keep both (IF YOU assume that the implicit promise even exists). I feel that Teacher's argument is heavily based on assumptions surrounding the strength of implicit vs explicit promises and/or the existence of implicit promises all together (i.e. Option D or possibly A). If I were a cheeky student I'd be like "yeahhh I never made any implicit promise to you... at all. So your argument sucks." OR I'd think: "What if I'm more loyal to Jeannie than you? I'd rather break the implicit "no lie" promise to you than break my explicit promise to Jeannie. Your argument sucks."

If someone can dismantle that line of reasoning I'll happily (and admittedly, gratefully) concede the point.

Now if E) had actually been the negation "One can sometimes break promises" and the negation had been "One can NEVER break a promise" then I'd be singing E to the high heavens. _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

Negated E): One should break a promise (you are correct here)Premise 1: You agree that it is bad to break promises (okay)

But how does Negated E) cancel/run counter to Premise 1?

Just because something is bad doesn't mean by definition that you shouldn't ever do it.

Consider:

Statement: One should kill a human beingPremise: You agree that is bad to kill human beings

Does the Statement, if true, conflict with the premise? Well:Scenario: Any self defense situation where you are in mortal danger.

My point: there are situations in which you can be expected to (and arguably, "should") commit an act that is generally considered and agreed upon to be "bad."

It seems to me, in our example, that the Teacher sets up the whole "you should never... unless" scenario. _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

Haha, I'll gladly give you kudos if you can tell me where my reasoning above is faulty, because this is kind of bugging me. _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

As per the Premise (3), the student was to lie (as per the promise with Jeannie) but he revealed the real truth (she is well) to the teacher and broke the promise.Now, teacher told her not to tell the real truth, which is just the Premise (2) [lying is the breaking of that promise]

So, when you add premise (1) and above reasoning then you will find that once a promise is made, whether implicit or explicit, it is to be kept. This is what E states.

Now, to confirm our reasoning, let's try the negation test on E:One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1), above reasoning and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

As per your question: The conclusion doesnt falls apart.Read closely. If one lies, then there is no need to say:1. You agree that it is bad to break promises2. Why the teacher will be asking the student not to tell her the real truth. She may just accept it, because Jeannie might be the Principal's daughter . There can be many reasons.

dalmba wrote:

ykaiim wrote:

e) One should never break a promiseTry the negation test:One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1) and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

Your explanation is good but it still doesn't satisfy my interpretation of the argument.

I disagree that the negation "one should break a promise" shatters the [you should not tell...] part. Simply and entirely because the Teacher, in no uncertain terms, tells the student to break a promise. Now, if someone can explain to me how that's an incorrect interpretation then fine. The way I break it down is as follows:

"You should not tell methat"

"that" refers to 'telling the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick"

Therefore: "you should not tell methatJeannie is home sick"

However, it is also stated: "you promised Jeannieyou'd tell me she was home sick" (preceded by "if," making this a hypothetical situation, just for clarity)

Thus the explicit promise is: Student WILL tell the Teacher that Jeannie is home sick.I consider the promise broken if this event does not occur EXACTLY as stated.In the sentence the Teacher advises the Student: "You should not tell me that Jeannie is home sick" (inferred, see above).

i.e. You should break your promise to Jeannie.

Therefore the Teacher's reasoning is not contingent on the assumption that "One should NEVER break a promise." Rather, it seems that the Teacher is saying that when faced with conflicting promises (implicit vs explicit) one has to make a decision because you can't keep both (IF YOU assume that the implicit promise even exists). I feel that Teacher's argument is heavily based on assumptions surrounding the strength of implicit vs explicit promises and/or the existence of implicit promises all together (i.e. Option D or possibly A). If I were a cheeky student I'd be like "yeahhh I never made any implicit promise to you... at all. So your argument sucks." OR I'd think: "What if I'm more loyal to Jeannie than you? I'd rather break the implicit "no lie" promise to you than break my explicit promise to Jeannie. Your argument sucks."

If someone can dismantle that line of reasoning I'll happily (and admittedly, gratefully) concede the point.

Now if E) had actually been the negation "One can sometimes break promises" and the negation had been "One can NEVER break a promise" then I'd be singing E to the high heavens.

I'm afraid I'm still not following you. It'd be very helpful if you were to go to my post where I outline my reasoning and show me exactly where it goes astray. Also, in your explanation here I have the following points to contend:

ykaiim wrote:

As per the Premise (3), the student was to lie (as per the promise with Jeannie) but he revealed the real truth (she is well) to the teacher and broke the promise. <<< "but he revealed the real truth" ?? When does this happen in the statement?

Now, teacher told her not to tell the real truth <<< i.e. the Teacher told him/her to Lie -- i.e. the Teacher told he/she to break an implicit promise., which is just the Premise (2) [lying is the breaking of that promise]

So, when you add premise (1) and above reasoning then you will find that once a promise is made, whether implicit or explicit, it is to be kept << except you just said that the Teacher told the student to lie. Implicit promise: is to be broken, not kept.. This is what E states.

What makes this even more confusing is that you seem to be arguing that the Teacher was encouraging the student to lie (quoting you: "Now, teacher told her not to tell the real truth") whereas I'm seeing it as the Teacher telling the student to avoid lying via the statement "you should not tell me that," where "that" is "Jeannie is home sick," thereby betraying Jeannie and breaking the explicit promise. EITHER WAY a promise is broken so E can't work.

Now, to confirm our reasoning, let's try the negation test on E:One should break a promise >>>>> It cancels the premise (1), above reasoning and the conclusion [You should not tell....] falls apart. Correct

As per your question: The conclusion doesnt falls apart.Read closely. If one lies, then there is no need to say:1. You agree that it is bad to break promises2. Why the teacher will be asking the student not to tell her the real truth. She may just accept it, because Jeannie might be the Principal's daughter . There can be many reasons.

_________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

Thank goodness. I was about to go crazy and start boycotting the LSAT prep _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance

It was implied, because when you dismantle the argument, the Teacher essentially says: break the explicit promise, but keep the implicit one. Since the Teacher did not provide an opinion as to whether or not that was always to be the case, it is implied that the Teacher assumes that "some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones." Otherwise the Teacher would not have said what they said! _________________

I'm a current Corporate Residency MBA student at Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia, Canada).This account is to help spread the word about this unique program, as well as to help provide a student perspective for MBA applications and GMAT experiences.

Every week I publish a blog about life in the CRMBA by interviewing current students. Find us on Twitter and Facebook, or post any questions/comments/concerns in this thread here on gmatclub.com

Highlights of the program include:

Specifically designed by Corporations/Employers, No work experience necessary, 8-month paid corporate residency, Grades/GMAT score not the main focus for admittance